Piers Lane has recorded
the Delius Piano Concerto before Ė but
not in this version. He made a recording
for the EMI Eminence label in July 1994,
coupled with the Vaughan Williams Piano
Concerto and Finziís Eclogue,
but that recording used the familiar
final version. What we have here is
the premiere recording of the original
version of the score.

The Delius concerto
has a history of revisions and re-workings
that is almost worthy of a Bruckner
symphony. It is worth summarising the
tale here and to do so I draw on Robert
Threlfallís excellent liner note. In
1897 Delius completed a single movement
Fantasy for orchestra and piano
in C minor. He subsequently revised
the material substantially, turning
it into a three-movement concerto, which
was first heard in 1904. Thatís what
Piers Lane gives us on this CD. Further
extensive surgery on the score followed,
including the excision of the whole
last movement. In this further revision
of the score, completed by 1907, all
three movements became linked. Delius
involved a pianist friend, Theodor Szántó,
in the process of revision. It was Szántó
who was responsible for rewriting the
piano part in a much more virtuoso style.
Szántó gave the first
performance of the revised version in
1907. Yet more retouching was done by
Sir Thomas Beecham in the early 1950s
and itís this Delius-Szántó-Beecham
version that is usually heard nowadays
and which, I assume, was used on Laneís
1994 recording.

I may as well be candid
and say at the outset that I donít find
this concerto to be one of the composerís
better works. Much of it is written
in a red-blooded, romantic style that
isnít really convincing. Delius did
red-blooded romanticism much better
in Appalachia, which dates from
around the same time as the original
score of the concerto. There are obvious
influences of Grieg and even, in the
more bravura passages, of Liszt but
these donít seem to be fully digested.
Listening to Piers Laneís two recordings
I feel that in many ways the revision
was beneficial, not least in terms of
brevity. His recording of the 1907 score
plays for 22:46, nearly six minutes
shorter than this present recording.
The revised version substituted one
rather unconvincing finale for another.
However, the finale of the 1907 score
is much shorter Ė 5:42 in Laneís 1994
recording against 11:32 here. Really,
the 1904 finale is far too long and
discursive for its own good. The 1907
finale doesnít really show Delius at
his best either but at least that movement
has the advantage of comparative brevity.

The first movement
is on a large scale and contains a good
deal of bravura writing for the soloist
and for the orchestra too. One of the
most notable changes that Delius made
in the 1907 revision was to end the
fist movement quietly so that it merges
seamlessly into the slow movement. That,
I think, is very much preferable to
the loud ending that we hear on this
occasion. The second, slow, movement
is largely the same in both versions
of the score. Itís a poetic, nocturne-like
piece and contains the most characteristically
Delian pages in the entire score. Itís
beautifully recreated here. Lane plays
with great sensitivity and heís supported
wonderfully well by the orchestra. Of
particular note is the ravishing short
solo cello passage near the end, which
is beautifully played by the Ulster
Orchestraís principal.

The finale is the longest
movement and the most discursive. Its
big gestures sit rather oddly against
the more sensitive music of Deliusís
maturity but, of course, this is a relatively
early work. To my ears some of the music
comes perilously close to bombast. The
1904 score includes a lengthy cadenza,
which was omitted from the revised score
Ė though some of the material was recycled
into the later Violin Concerto. Ironically,
the cadenza contains some of the most
characteristic music in the finale.
I rather regret that Delius discarded
it completely from the revised score.
Lane and Lloyd-Jones play the movement
for all its worth and they make the
most of the rhetorical flourishes. Iím
sure the solo part is very taxing but
Lane seems to make light of the difficulties.

No such textural issues
affect the two works by John Ireland.
His Legend represents all that
he was able to complete of a projected
Second Piano Concerto. Itís an interesting
and atmospheric score and this performance
seems to me to be a good one. The Piano
Concerto itself is rather more familiar
fare. Todayís listener may well be reminded
of Prokofievís Third Piano Concerto
(1921) from time to time, especially
in the busy toccata-like passages of
the finale. There are also times when
the music reminds one of Ravelís G major
concerto. However, Lewis Foreman points
out in his extremely good note that
Ireland couldnít have known Ravelís
score, as it hadnít then been finished.
So, as he says, the "apparent resonances
[of Ravelís piece] merely record something
that was in the air." I very much
enjoyed this performance. Piers Lane
seems to be thoroughly at home with
the piece and he gives a very convincing
reading of the solo part. Once again
he receives admirable support from David
Lloyd-Jones and his players. I was especially
impressed by the sensitive and affectionate
way that they open the slow movement,
ushering in Laneís thoughtful opening
solo quite magically. All the performers
are no less responsive to the many lively,
not to say perky, passages in the concerto.

This is a most interesting
disc. For me the Delius is rather a
weak work but Delians will want to take
this opportunity to hear for the first
time a genuine rarity, especially in
such a good and committed performance.
The Ireland performances are just as
good. As Iíve already indicated that
the liner-notes are extremely informative
and the recorded sound is fully satisfactory.
This is another fascinating and enterprising
addition to the Hyperion catalogue,
which I recommend to all enthusiasts
for English music.

Reviews
from previous monthsJoin the mailing list and receive a hyperlinked weekly update on the
discs reviewed. detailsWe welcome feedback on our reviews. Please use the Bulletin
Board
Please paste in the first line of your comments the URL of the review to
which you refer.